Linda A. Piggee, Complainant,v.Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 16, 2002
01A13859 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 16, 2002)

01A13859

10-16-2002

Linda A. Piggee, Complainant, v. Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Linda A. Piggee v. Department of the Army

01A13859

October 16, 2002

.

Linda A. Piggee,

Complainant,

v.

Thomas E. White,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A13859

Agency No. BODNF09912J0510

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision

(FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),

as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission

AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was

employed as a NF-1101-01, Business Manager (Operations) at the agency's

Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) facility in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Complainant was informed that due to a reorganization within the NCO Club,

her position would be abolished effected December 6, 1999. The record

reflects that the written notice of her pending separation advised

complainant of her placement rights and assistance available to her.

Complainant's supervisor (S1) granted her leave with pay to seek other

employment. Thereafter, complainant was separated by business-based

action on December 6, 1999.

The record also reflects that prior to and after her separation,

complainant requested to be placed in the position of NS-7405-03,

Bartender Foreman at the NCO Club. Although she applied, complainant

was not selected for the position.

Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal

complaint on February 2, 2000, alleging that she was discriminated

against on the bases of race (African-American) and reprisal (prior

protected activity under Title VII) when she was removed and not selected

for the bartender position. At the conclusion of the investigation,

complainant was informed of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by

the agency. Complainant requested that the agency issue a final decision.

In its FAD, the agency found that complainant established a prima facie

case of race discrimination with respect to her non-selection, but did not

establish a prima facie case of reprisal. The FAD found that complainant

did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any basis with

respect to her separation. On appeal, complainant contends, among other

things, that the agency failed to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for its actions. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of

burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging

discrimination is a three-step process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973); see Hochstadt v. Worcestor Foundation

for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976),

aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to

retaliation cases). First, complainant must establish a prima facie

case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,

reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination; i.e., that a

prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.

McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Next, the agency must articulate a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s) for its actions. Texas Department

of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency

is successful, then the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that the legitimate reason(s) proffered by the agency was

a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 256.

Complainant may establish a prima facie case of race discrimination

involving non-selection by showing: (1) she is a member of a protected

class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she was not selected

for the position; and (4) she was accorded less favorable treatment

from that given to persons otherwise similarly situated. Williams

v. Department of Education, EEOC Request No. 05970561 (August 6, 1998).

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to her

separation, complainant must establish that: (1) she is a member of

a protected group under Title VII; (2) she was meeting the legitimate

expectations of her employer; and (3) she was discharged without cause, or

was singled out for termination while similarly situated employees not in

her protected group were treated more favorably. Flowers v. Crouch-Walker

Corp., 552 F. 2d 1277 (7th Cir. 1977). Complainant may also set forth

evidence of acts from which, if otherwise unexplained, an inference

of discrimination can be drawn. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,

438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).

Complainant can establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination

with respect to her non-selection or separation by presenting facts that,

if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Shapiro v. Social Security Admin., EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6,

1996) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802

(1973)). Specifically, in a reprisal claim, and in accordance with

the burdens set forth in McDonnell Douglas, supra; Hochstadt, supra;

and Coffman v. Department of Veteran Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960473

(November 20, 1997), complainant may establish a prima facie case of

reprisal by showing that: (1) she engaged in a protected activity;

(2) the agency was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently,

she was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a nexus

exists between the protected activity and the adverse treatment.

In regard to complainant's reprisal claims, the Commission concludes

that complainant did not establish a prima facie case. In particular,

the Commission finds that complainant failed to show that S1 was aware

of her prior protected activity.

The Commission notes that the reorganization eliminated the positions

of two of the four Business Managers, and that a While Business Manager

also was separated. Assuming that complainant established a prima

facie case of race discrimination, we are not persuaded that the agency

did not sufficiently articulate its reasons for the reorganization and

resulting separations or that complainant established that the agency's

reasons for eliminating her position were a pretext for discrimination.

While complainant disagrees with the agency's proffered reasons, and

argues that various officials should have made different decisions,

we find her contentions insufficient to establish pretext.

In regard to the non-selection, the Commission finds that complainant

established a prima facie case of race discrimination. Specifically,

complainant is a member of a protected class. She applied, and was

qualified, for the Bartender Foreman position. The agency selected a

White applicant for the position.

Because complainant has established a prima facie case of race

discrimination, the agency must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for its action. The record establishes that the Bartender Foreman

position was advertised and the selectee was chosen based on her twenty

plus years of hands-on bartending experience. The record also reflects

that the selectee had a proven record scheduling the bar staff; training

bartenders and cocktail waitresses; doing inventory; and stocking the bar.

Because the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for the non-selection, complainant must show that the reason is

a pretext for discriminatory animus. In a non-selection case, pretext

may be demonstrated in a number of ways, including a showing that

complainant's qualifications are observably superior to those of the

selectee(s). Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981).

However, an employer has the discretion to choose among equally

qualified candidates. Canham v. Oberlin College, 666 F.2d 1057, 1061

(6th Cir. 1981). However, in the instant case and despite her arguments

to the contrary, we find that complainant has not presented sufficient

evidence that her qualifications were �observably superior.�

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's

contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence

not specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation

of material fact or law; or

2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operations of the agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States

District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you

receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as

the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official agency head

or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and

official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your

case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,

and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the

action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).

The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of

the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time

in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action

must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above

("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

October 16, 2002

__________________

Date